Re: Real-time surveillance of the police

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
                         SANDY SANDFORT
 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

C'punks,

Don Doumakes wrote:

    ... why on earth would the police, who will not consent
    to civilian review, ever go along with something orders
    of magnitude more extreme?

(1)  There are civilian review boards; the consent of the police
is not a prerequisite.  If they don't like it, they can get a
real job.

(2)  It is in their best interests to be protected from false
accusations, and to be able to be quickly located under emergency
conditions.

    ObCrypto/Privacy:  I suspect there would be an immense
    amount of radio traffic involved in keeping track of a
    substantial group of people ... [I doubt] the ability of
    the receivers to digest it all in real time.

(1)  My suggestion was for (probably local) recording, not real
time monitoring of video; therefore, no bandwidth problems.

(2)  Tim might want to comment, but my understanding of the
localizer technology is that it too is somewhat "local" and that
polling or burst transmission keeps the bandwidth requirements at
manageable levels.


 S a n d y

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Topics I'll discuss: surveillance tapes of cops, localizer bandwidth
needs, and digital timestamping.

There's _some_ Cypherpunks relevance here, as this thread deals with
the issue of surveillance, self-surveillance, escrowed records, etc. 

I have another point of view to add: I don't want to see my local cops
have all of their actions videotaped and reviewed for quite another
reason--I don't want a "mechanization" of the enforcement process!

Cops, for all of their faults, also have some positive personal
characteristics: they use discretion in enforcing laws, they let folks
off with warnings or shrugs, etc. I shudder to think about a world in
which the hideously complicated legal code is enforced by cops who
have video cameras mounted behind them to verify that they never gave
a sucker^H^H^Hcitizen-unit a break. 

(I am slightly reluctant to tell Sandy I have some good opinions of
the California Highway Patrol, but I do. I elected to take a one day
class to get a speeding ticket taken off my record, and the class was
taught by an extremely able, pragmatic retired CHP officer. He had all
kinds of tips about driving, accidents, etc., having seen 500 or more
fatalities in his 25+ years with the CHP. He also talked about the
local judgment, or discretion, that CHP officers have to have. For
example, to raise tax revenues, California ruled that "fix-it tickets"
(no fee, no fine, just present evidence that a minor automobile flaw
has been corrected) would no longer be allowed, that even the most
minor infractions--broken tail-light, cracked windshield, etc.--would
have to go through the legal process, with special soak-the-driver
"administrative" (really, revenue enhancement) fees. So the CHP is
simply not playing along, and they've found a way to avoid the process
by issuing a different kind of ticket that is in fact a fix-it
ticket. He also gave other examples that left me with a more favorable
impression of cops....perhaps this was his intent?)

(The longer-than-I'd-planned section above is meant to show that even
a cop-disliking skeptic like me can be convinced that some good is
done is by them, and that not all cops are bad. Perhaps my on-day
exposure co-opted me the way certain folks in D.C. got co-opted?)

Anyway, I don't _want_ a mechanistic enforcement of *all* laws, with a
video camera second-guessing the cop. I don't want 43,761 laws being
enforced religiously. (If we had just the 13 or 14 laws I think we
need, strict enforcement would be a good thing, but not when the
43,748 extra laws are cluttering up the books.)

"Officer, the video records of 1994-12-12 14:22:31 PST indicate your
patrol unit was within visual range of a 324.986.666 ("Bicycle Helmet
of Improper Color") and yet you ignored this misdemeanor. This being
your 3rd such oversight this month, you are being reassigned to the
Discipline Platoon at Camp Pendleton. Dismissed."

Forcing the cops to surveill themselves will almost certainly take
away what enforcement discretion they now have.

Sandy Sandfort wrote:

(quoting someone else)

>     ObCrypto/Privacy:  I suspect there would be an immense
>     amount of radio traffic involved in keeping track of a
>     substantial group of people ... [I doubt] the ability of
>     the receivers to digest it all in real time.
> 
> (1)  My suggestion was for (probably local) recording, not real
> time monitoring of video; therefore, no bandwidth problems.
> 
> (2)  Tim might want to comment, but my understanding of the
> localizer technology is that it too is somewhat "local" and that
> polling or burst transmission keeps the bandwidth requirements at
> manageable levels.

On this bandwidth point, it is certainly true that N
localizers/transceivers communicating at M bits per second with some
maximum carrier frequency can "overload" the "free space channel."
(Crudely, when N x M > .5 B, where B is the "bandwidth" of the
communications channel.)

For example, a million people each trying to communicate a thousand
bits per second would imply an aggregate of a billion bits pers
second, barely possible if the carrier frequency maxes out at a few
gigahertz. This is Shannon's Theorem, of course. And this is within
"one space," nearby. In the real world, with a few miles as the
effective range, the "crowding" is not severe. (I'm ignoring other
users, radio and t.v., cellular, RF noise, etc. Important things to
consider in a more detailed calculation.)

Ten thousand such units, in a space a few miles square, each "trying"
to communicate 1000 bits per second, would result in only about 10^7
bits per second, aggregate. This is far, far below any Shannon limits
(of course, there are other users of the spectrum who may "step on"
the users here...these are all tradeoffs to consider, and that _have_
been considered). Fortunately, localization doesn't typically need
1000 bits per second, in any case.

(A skier lost in the mountains, a child who has wandered away....all
are cases where the needed bits per second is _much_ less than 1000
bps. Indeed, most of the localizers are either not sending info at
all, or very sporadically.)


Finally, the problems of "proving" the surveillance or audio/video
records are not later changed by cops or others is easily solved--by
something of great crypto relevance.

Namely, digital time-stamping, a la Haber and Stornetta. No "trusted
third party storage" is needed: just hash the surveillance records a
la Haber and Stornetta and the resulting published hash cannot at a
later time be forged. (I devoted much space to this in the FAQ, so
grep it for this if interested.)

--Tim May

-- 
..........................................................................
Timothy C. May         | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money,  
tcmay@netcom.com       | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero
408-688-5409           | knowledge, reputations, information markets, 
W.A.S.T.E.: Aptos, CA  | black markets, collapse of governments.
Higher Power: 2^859433 | Public Key: PGP and MailSafe available.
Cypherpunks list: majordomo@toad.com with body message of only: 
subscribe cypherpunks. FAQ available at ftp.netcom.com in pub/tc/tcmay

> I have another point of view to add: I don't want to see my local cops
> have all of their actions videotaped and reviewed for quite another
> reason--I don't want a "mechanization" of the enforcement process!

Its already here.  Its a show called COPS.  My brother (the black sheep)
used to watch it quite a bit before he became one (a cop, not a sheep).
More and more police cars here in Texas are becomming equiped with
video cameras.  Some of the stuff is just unreal, although I prefer
the subtle comical tones of one who is under the influence of minde
altering subtences.

> Forcing the cops to surveill themselves will almost certainly take
> away what enforcement discretion they now have.

Actually, it usually gives them more credibility in court.  I had the
pleasure of going to court for a traffic violation to try to plead 
guilty so they would cut the fine in half at the local court house.
What I saw amazed me.  I saw person after person trying to defend
themselves.  They had a police officer referring to his notes, while
the government's lawyer quickly won every case.  He would ask
some simple questions such as, what was the color of the car, etc.
and the judge would just fine the defendant guilty.

UNTIL, someone came in with his own lawyer.  I asked him why he 
brought a lawyer and he had apparently received a few too many
tickets (DUIs) and could loose his license.  Anyway, this case
started just as the others had.  Poor guy, I thought, he's going
to loose his license and have to pay this lawyer too.  But then
just as soon as the officer started to read from his note pad,
his lawyer yelled, "OBJECTION!  your honor... *please*".

To which the judge replied, "your right, " pointed to the officer
and told him to put away the notes.  After that, he just jumped
all over the officer.  He went nuts when the officer said he
smelled alcohol on his client and even brought in a chemist to
testify on the properties of alcohol (which is oderless).  To 
make a long story short, the guy was guilty, but it was thrown 
out because of the officer.

I say this becuase I am tired of hearing about court cases who
put the victims on trial rather than the criminals.  I would
like to see a criminal deny video tape.  

[ much omited..]

Given an effective range of a few miles, your devices must be operating
in the 220MHZ + range of freqs (??) and at relatively low power?
 
> (A skier lost in the mountains, a child who has wandered away....all
> are cases where the needed bits per second is _much_ less than 1000
> bps. Indeed, most of the localizers are either not sending info at
> all, or very sporadically.)

Actually, if you've ever gone on a fox hunt with some amateur radio
buffs you would quickly find a problem with this.  I'm sure on more
than one occasion a fox-hunter has driven several miles only to
find that the signal he is tracking is being reflected off of a 
building or lake.

Although I do recall that there was talk of a cellular telephone company
(in Chicago??) was working on a software modification to do essentially
this.  I don't know if they are doing it now, but I remember some of
the details... the three closest repeaters would triangulate your 
possition down to the city block.  The police were either very interested
or very happy with this... I don't remember which...

-- 
Joe N. Turner		Telecheck International
turner@telecheck.com    5251 Westheimer, PO BOX 4659, Houston, TX 77210-4659
compu$erv: 73301,1654	(800) 888-4922  *   (713) 439-6597